On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
quoted text
> Readdir plus is a little more involved.  For one thing the actual kernel
> implementation will be a variant of getdents() call anyway while a
> readdirplus would only be a library level interface.  At the actual
> C prototype level I would rename d_stat_err to d_stat_errno for consistency
> and maybe drop the readdirplus() entry point in favour of readdirplus_r
> only - there is no point in introducing new non-reenetrant APIs today.
>
> Also we should not try to put in any of the synchronization or non-caching
> behaviours mentioned earlier in this thread (they're fortunately not in
> the pdf mentioned above either).  If we ever want to implement these kinds
> of additional gurantees (which I doubt) that should happen using fadvise
> calls on the diretory file descriptor.

Can you explain what the struct stat result portion of readdirplus() 
should mean in this case?

My suggestion was that its consistency follow that of the directory entry 
(i.e. mimic the readdir() specification), which (as far as the POSIX 
description goes) means it is at least as recent as opendir().  That model 
seems to work pretty well for readdir() on both local and network 
filesystems, as it allows buffering and so forth.  This is evident from 
the fact that it's semantics haven't been relaxed by NFS et al (AFAIK).

Alternatively, one might specify that the result be valid at the time of 
the readdirplus() call, but I think everyone agrees that is unnecessary, 
and more importantly, semantically indistinguishable from a 
readdir()+stat().

The only other option I've heard seems to be that the validity of stat() 
not be specified at all.  This strikes me as utterly pointless--why create 
a call whose result has no definition.  It's also semantically 
indistinguishable from a readdir()+statlite(null mask).

The fact that NFS and maybe others returned cached results for stat() 
doesn't seem relevant to how the call is _defined_.  If the definition of 
stat() followed NFS, then it might read something like "returns 
information about a file that was accurate at some point in the last 30 
seconds or so."  On the other hand, if readdirplus()'s stat consistency is 
defined the same way as the dirent, NFS et al are still free to ignore 
that specification and return cached results, as they already do for 
stat().  (A 'lite' version of readdirplus() might even let users pick and 
choose, should the fs support both behaviors, just like statlite().)  I 
don't really care what NFS does, but if readdirplus() is going to be
specified at all, it should be defined in a way that makes sense and has 
some added semantic value.

Also, one note about the fadvise() suggestion.  I think there's a key 
distinction between what fadvise() currently does (provide hints to the 
filesystem for performance optimization) and your proposal, which would 
allow it to change the consistency semantics of other calls.  That might 
be fine, but it strikes me as a slightly strange thing to specify new 
functionality that redefines previously defined semantics--even to realign 
with popular implementations.

sage

P.S.  I should probably mention that I'm not part of the group working on 
this proposal.  I've just been following their progress as it relates to 
my own distributed filesystem research.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html